Looking for a D70 telephoto

[burgerboy]

HI all,
I'm looking for a telephoto to compliment my D70's kit lens. I really like the kit lens, but at times I'm looking for the reach it just doesn't have.

I will be going overseas later this year and I would like to take my gear with me, so weight is a concern. I will be shooting scenic, people, wildlife, etc.

My budget is limited, so here are the ones I've been looking at.

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super II - $220

(What's the difference between the above lens and the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens?)

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED - $260

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - $130

Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses?

Also, what kind of circular polarizer filter should I be looking at? Some are out-right expensive. Am I OK with the less expensive ones?

TIA

[smorris]

I've got the 70-300 ED lens. It is OK for vacation snapshot photos, and if you are not going to make large prints you will find it very nice. It is lightweight, and fairly sharp. If you are going to take "good" photos (for lack of a better descriptor) where you want sharpness all the way to the corner, and good low-light use, you'll find any of the above lacking. For that price range, though, go with the ED lens. The G has a plastic mount, and arguably lesser quality glass. I gave the Sigma a try in the store, and it was OK. I already had a macro, so I passed for the Nikor.

As for the circular polarizer, get the one that fits your largest lens, and use a step-up ring to make it fit your smaller lens. Your kit lens is a 67mm, and the 70-300 is 62, so if you get a 62 -> 67 step-up ring, you can use one polarizer on both, without vignetting problems. get one plenty early before you leave, because the 67mm is an odd size. Get the best polarizer you can talk yourself into spending. You don't want a good lens with a less than perfect piece of glass in front of it. especially when you get better lenses. You don't shoot through house or car windows, do you? Then don't shoot through a $10 piece of glass.

I just shot 320 images at an autocross this morning, almost all with the 18-70 at the long end of the range, and with the 180mm f/2.8. That sucker is a beautiful lens! I also just got back from a week's vacation in Bermuda, and took my 18-70, 70-300, 16mm, 50mm, and 180mm. I used the 16mm for about 10-15% of the images, the 180mm for about 10%, and the 18-70 for everything else. I never event took the 50mm or 70-300 out of the bag.

Look at a monopod for the 70-300! It gets to moving out at 300mm at slow exposures. The feisol is light and compact. You won't even know you've packed it.

Here's my toys, and if you click on the D-70 you can see the accessories.
http://www.morrisgarage.com/clique

Here's today's autocross shots:
http://smorris.smugmug.com/gallery/698352

If you haven't already found them, there is a D-70 forum, and Nikor lens forum at www.DPReview.com. Another is www.Nikonians.org

Hope this helps,
Steve

[Quack]

don't know about the Nikon lenses (because modding the wagon eats most of my $), but i have a few sigma lenses. for the price, i get good images.

i believe all of these were taken with my 70-300 sigma:

[TurbeauxREX]

Another alternative to settling for less expensive lenses due to budget constraints is to buy used, higher-quality glass. While there is a risk, if you shop on reputable phtography sites, you will be safer than going to ebay. Try www.robgalbraith.com or other dedicated sites.

I cannot stress enough, buy the best glass that you can afford if you plan to stay involved in photography. Good glass is easy to sell at a higher price versus consumer-line lenses. But, then again, with photoshop or other editing software, you can always sharpen, etc, to get the results you want. Ultimately, it's yor nickel so take everything I've said with a grain of salt.

Peace,

Curtis

[TurbeauxREX]

Also, if you choose to go the aftermarket route, look into Tamron lenses. Glass quality is very close, and in some cases better than OEM, plus they offer a 7 year warranty. I have the 28-75 f2.8 XR Di which makes super sharp images. Price is comparable to Sigmas with a better build quality.

Good luck,

Curtis

[Verdugo]

+1 for the Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED

It's not the fastest telephoto in the world, nor the sharpest, but it's damn good for the price. The next step up and you're looking at least $900 for a 80-200 f/2.8 or $1600ish for a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

On the whole, I prefer my Nikon lenses over anything that Sigma has to offer. I don't see myself as a Nikkor fanboy, but it just seems to work out that generally speaking, Nikkor lenses tend to be superior. In any case, here are some samples from my D lens...

[c00lbeans]

dont get the sigma macro lens the auto focus is sooooo slowwwwwwwww

[InfamousDX]

This is the one I have. I agree the autofocus is very slow but if you can manual focus it's not a problem. I usually only use it for NON-low light functions like autoX, track days, drag strip... all those sunny, daytime high speed activities. I don't care for the macro feature but it's pretty sharp from what I've seen in my samples. I actually bought it used for $90 shipped so THAT is a bargain in itself, I think... that is if you can find a deal like I did.

[c00lbeans]

i have used the canon, tamron, and sigma 24-70 2.8F lenses. Canon is the best and the tamron was pretty good. The sigma sucks alot of ballz

[burgerboy]

Thanks for all the input guys!

There was a review of some 70-300mm lenses in a British publication. They picked the Sigma over the Nikon G. Can anyone comment on the auto focus speed of the Sigma vs the Nikons? I got a chance to try the G and the ED in the local store and thought the autofocus was slow, but tolerable.

What about Tamron? Do they make a comparable lens in this pricerange?

I'm leaning towards the ED for now.

[Wrinkleboi]

i dont know what kind of photography you plan to do but a lot of lenses are sharp at f/8 and above. the difference is the more expensive ones stay sharp wide open too. either way, if you're not going to be really critical than any of the lenses above will work fine for you. what i mean here is if you plan to set your camera on a tripod, shoot at a small aperture on a timer, and manually focus it then any of the above lenses will do a similar job i'm sure. where the difference will come in is if you want to shoot wide open, or shoot sports using the autofocus, or anything like that.
if autofocus speed is important to you then there is a very nice sigma 70-200 2.8 lens on the market that is quite a value, although it is considerable more expensive than what you are looking at... $650 or so i believe. however it does have a constant 2.8 aperture, sharper glass, and HSM autofocus which is very quick. i owned one before i made the plunge into the Nikon AF-S lens world and I was very happy with it. it might be worth looking into a used one... higher end equipment in good condition has a high resale value though... that can be a good or a bad thing.
bryan

[Web Foot STi]

I have a Nikon D70 and my first second lens was the 70-300mm G. Cheap and not bad. Very light for carrying around.

I haven't shot much with it though as a walked into a used deal on a VR 70-200mm for $1195. The f/2.8 is fantastic. The VR 70-200mm is a tank though regards to weight..

I'm keeping the 70-300mm D for any future road trips. It's so compact and light fro the price.

[Quack]

i was just looking at some photo's of mine and noticed a HUGE difference

this was taken with a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8


Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6

[smorris]

Nice comparison. Good glass kicks ass!

That's probably my next lens for faster focusing than my 180, and for framing up next to the fence at Mid-Ohio.